A reminder that the Christian faith is not our own, but that we are at best its custodians, and that we should pray to be made worthy of that role. Also a reminder that schism is not worse than heresy, but that they are inseparable, and that unity and orthodoxy together are tied to our sanctification:

O Almighty God, who hast built thy Church upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone: Grant us so to be joined together in unity of spirit by their doctrine, that we may be made an holy temple acceptable unto thee; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen

This is a touching and provocative piece. I post it for those reasons, and because I am fond of Dr. Volf and think he is one of the most talented theologians writing these days. The piece makes me think about my attitudes to artificial contraception -- though I continue to believe that the official RC position is incorrect. In any event, thank you, Fr. Harmon. Read the whole thing here.

Infertility—a gift!? Poison and a curse—that's how this unexplained infertility of ours felt to me for what seemed like an eternity. Nine years of trying to have a child of our own was like having to drink bitter waters from a poisoned well month after month. Nothing could break the sinister hold of barrenness on our lives, not strict adherence to whatever expert advice we could get, not prayer, not the latest infertility techniques, not fasting, nothing....

....The season of Advent was the worst. "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given," I would hear read or sung in hundreds of different variations. But from me a child was withheld. The miracle of Mary's conception, the rejoicing of the heavens at her newborn child, the exultation of Elizabeth all became signs of God's painful absence, not God's advent....

Friday, June 24, 2005

Today is the feast of the Nativity of Saint John the Baptist. I thought the collect was appropriate for some of our Anglican woes:

Almighty God, by whose providence thy servant John the Baptist was wonderfully born, and sent to prepare the way of thy Son our Savior by preaching repentance: Make us so to follow his doctrine and holy life, that we may truly repent according to his preaching; and after his example [and with the aid of his prayers] constantly speak the truth, boldly rebuke vice, and patiently suffer for the truth's sake; through the same thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

Thursday, June 23, 2005

After discussion in three business sessions, the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) voted June 22 to change its constitution to include the 37 Primates as ex officio members, thereby increasing the membership from 78 to 115.

Originally introduced at Monday's session, the action included a provision to attempt to ensure balance for clergy and lay members. Under the new configuration, laity representation would no longer be the majority of the ACC, one of the four "instruments of unity" within the Anglican Communion.

This seems to me to be a very encouraging move in the direction of the kind of truly catholic polity that Anglicanism has lacked since the beginning of its massive expansion beyond the confines of Great Britain. This is in the spirit of the proposals of the Windsor Report, and it is a step toward taking seriously the fact that we believe in "one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church." So it seems to me anyway.

Friends, well-wishers, you've been itching for one, now you can get one. At long last, here is the Pope Benedict Fan Club, formerly the Cardinal Ratzinger Fan Club. Order your baseball caps here. They read "The Cardinal Ratzinger Fan Club: Putting the Smackdown on Heresy Since 1981". Recently I was given a pin. I am now searching for a suitable context for the expression of the burgeoning Anglo-Papalism that is within me.

I am sure the world is wondering, "What is WB reading this Summer?" Well, WB is reading "The Christian Priest Today" by Archbishop Michael Ramsey, of blessed memory.

Here is something Ramsey says, something we would be doing well to consider.

It is not that some of the images of God are "better" than others, but that all are needed ("height" and "depth", "king" and "father"), all are inadequate, and all subserve the divine Word, living, active, sharper than a two-edged sword and piercing to the dividing of our human faculties. Without the realization of thie the idea of God in our minds may be "sicklied o'er with the pale cast" of conventionalism. Is not this liable to happen? I am sure you will find many devout people for whom this has happened.

My commentary, in brevis: I don't think this is a big concern for your average Episcopal clergyman. If anything, its the opposite. We are too anxious to move into the noche oscura de la alma of St. John of the Cross, running right past the fact of God's decidedly conventional self-revelation as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. No, indeed, this is, if anything, a danger primarilly for, as ArchBp. Ramsey noted, "devout people" without theological training. The sort of octagenerians one finds charmingly thumbing their rosarios in southern Europe, and from whose piety we Episcopal clergymen could learn much, namely about God as Father, King, Judge, etc.

On debt and frugal living: "It is easier to make our wishes conform to our means, than to make our means to conform to our wishes." ~ Lee writing to one of his sons, 22 August 1860.

On marriage: "Never marry unless you can do so into a family that will enable your children to feel proud of both sides of the house." ~ General Lee writing to J.B. Hood. Don’t wife hunt in bars or tattoo parlors.

On minding your own business: "Meddle or interfere with nothing with which you have no concern." ~ Lee to his sons, 30 November 1845.

On humility: "It’s all my fault." ~ Lee at Gettysburg. Be willing to admit your mistakes and take blame.

On honesty: "Private and public life are subject to the same rules; and truth and manliness are two qualities that will carry you through this world much better than policy, or tact, or expediency, or any other word that was ever devised to conceal or mystify a deviation from a straight line." ~ One of Lee’s personal maxims. A young man should say what he means and mean what he says. Avoid the demeaning examples of politicians, government bureaucrats, and lawyers.

On what’s important: "Be true kind, and generous, and pray earnestly to God to enable you to keep His commandments and walk in the same all the days of your life." ~ Lee to his sons, 31 March 1846.

1. Jesus, His Mother and disciples were invited to a wedding in Cana. 2. During the wedding feast the wine ran short. 3. Mary turned to Jesus: "They have no wine." 4. Jesus replied: "What would you have me do? My hour has not yet come." 5. Mary said to the waiters: "Do whatever he tells you." 6. There were six stone water jars, each holding fifteen to twenty gallons. 7. Jesus bids the waiters to fill the jars with water, and then draw some out and take it to the chief steward. 8. The chief steward said to the groom: "Every man serves the good wine first... but you have saved the good wine until now." 9. At Mary's request, Jesus worked His first miracle. 10. By His presence, Christian marriage was raised to the dignity of a Sacrament.

Thursday, June 16, 2005

Is Jack white some kind of weird, confused Christian? I note as evidence the liner art of the new White Stripes album which, moreover, is called "Get Behind Me Satan." That by itself says nothing, I suppose. And as counterevidence, consider the following:

White Stripes frontman Jack White, 29, married British supermodel Karen Elson, 25, Thursday in the Brazilian city of Manaus, according to RollingStone.com. The couple, who had not made their relationship public, were wed by a Shaman priest in a canoe at the spot where three rivers - the Rio Negro, the Solimones and the Amazon - meet.

I said at the beginning "confused." Right, so consider the shamanism as potentially mitigated by the following, which I am told was at Jack White's behest:

The Shaman ceremony was followed by a blessing at a local Catholic cathedral.

Who knows? Perhaps say a decade or two for Jack White.

Read the whole thing here. Also, watch the new White Stripes video, Blue Orchid. Maybe scan it for more evidence, for or against the thesis.

You are Roman Catholic. Church tradition and ecclesial authority are hugely important, and the most important part of worship for you is mass. As the Mother of God, Mary is important in your theology, and as the communion of saints includes the living and the dead, you can also ask the saints to intercede for you.

A venerable Protestant denomination - at the behest of some of its conservative members - is preparing to vote next month on a measure declaring that Jesus Christ is the Lord, and making it mandatory for clergy to accept his divinity.

It may seem like a slam dunk, but delegates for the 1.3 million-member United Church of Christ may reject the resolution. Several Bergen County pastors, who aren’t delegates to the convention, said they expect the measure to fail.

Wednesday, June 15, 2005

For those who are interested, or who might wonder why we might consider the merits of two thousand years of consistent and universal teaching over the authority of ECUSA's demiurge:

APOSTOLIC LETTER OF JOHN PAUL IITO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON RESERVING PRIESTLY ORDINATION TO MEN ALONE

Venerable Brothers in the Episcopate,

1. Priestly ordination, which hands on the office entrusted by Christ to his Apostles of teaching, sanctifying and governing the faithful, has in the Catholic Church from the beginning always been reserved to men alone. This tradition has also been faithfully maintained by the Oriental Churches.

When the question of the ordination of women arose in the Anglican Communion, Pope Paul VI, out of fidelity to his office of safeguarding the Apostolic Tradition, and also with a view to removing a new obstacle placed in the way of Christian unity, reminded Anglicans of the position of the Catholic Church: "She holds that it is not admissible to ordain women to the priesthood, for very fundamental reasons. These reasons include: the example recorded in the Sacred Scriptures of Christ choosing his Apostles only from among men; the constant practice of the Church, which has imitated Christ in choosing only men; and her living teaching authority which has consistently held that the exclusion of women from the priesthood is in accordance with God's plan for his Church."(1)

But since the question had also become the subject of debate among theologians and in certain Catholic circles, Paul VI directed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to set forth and expound the teaching of the Church on this matter. This was done through the Declaration Inter Insigniores, which the Supreme Pontiff approved and ordered to be published.(2)

2. The Declaration recalls and explains the fundamental reasons for this teaching, reasons expounded by Paul VI, and concludes that the Church "does not consider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination."(3) To these fundamental reasons the document adds other theological reasons which illustrate the appropriateness of the divine provision, and it also shows clearly that Christ's way of acting did not proceed from sociological or cultural motives peculiar to his time. As Paul VI later explained: "The real reason is that, in giving the Church her fundamental constitution, her theological anthropology-thereafter always followed by the Church's Tradition- Christ established things in this way."(4)

In the Apostolic Letter Mulieris Dignitatem, I myself wrote in this regard: "In calling only men as his Apostles, Christ acted in a completely free and sovereign manner. In doing so, he exercised the same freedom with which, in all his behavior, he emphasized the dignity and the vocation of women, without conforming to the prevailing customs and to the traditions sanctioned by the legislation of the time."(5)

In fact the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles attest that this call was made in accordance with God's eternal plan; Christ chose those whom he willed (cf. Mk 3:13-14; Jn 6:70), and he did so in union with the Father, "through the Holy Spirit" (Acts 1:2), after having spent the night in prayer (cf. Lk 6:12). Therefore, in granting admission to the ministerial priesthood,(6) the Church has always acknowledged as a perennial norm her Lord's way of acting in choosing the twelve men whom he made the foundation of his Church (cf. Rv 21:14). These men did not in fact receive only a function which could thereafter be exercised by any member of the Church; rather they were specifically and intimately associated in the mission of the Incarnate Word himself (cf. Mt 10:1, 7-8; 28:16-20; Mk 3:13-16; 16:14-15). The Apostles did the same when they chose fellow workers(7) who would succeed them in their ministry.(8) Also included in this choice were those who, throughout the time of the Church, would carry on the Apostles' mission of representing Christ the Lord and Redeemer.(9)

3. Furthermore, the fact that the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God and Mother of the Church, received neither the mission proper to the Apostles nor the ministerial priesthood clearly shows that the non-admission of women to priestly ordination cannot mean that women are of lesser dignity, nor can it be construed as discrimination against them. Rather, it is to be seen as the faithful observance of a plan to be ascribed to the wisdom of the Lord of the universe.

The presence and the role of women in the life and mission of the Church, although not linked to the ministerial priesthood, remain absolutely necessary and irreplaceable. As the Declaration Inter Insigniores points out, "the Church desires that Christian women should become fully aware of the greatness of their mission: today their role is of capital importance both for the renewal and humanization of society and for the rediscovery by believers of the true face of the Church."(10)

The New Testament and the whole history of the Church give ample evidence of the presence in the Church of women, true disciples, witnesses to Christ in the family and in society, as well as in total consecration to the service of God and of the Gospel. "By defending the dignity of women and their vocation, the Church has shown honor and gratitude for those women who-faithful to the Gospel-have shared in every age in the apostolic mission of the whole People of God. They are the holy martyrs, virgins and mothers of families, who bravely bore witness to their faith and passed on the Church's faith and tradition by bringing up their children in the spirit of the Gospel."(11)

Moreover, it is to the holiness of the faithful that the hierarchical structure of the Church is totally ordered. For this reason, the Declaration Inter Insigniores recalls: "the only better gift, which can and must be desired, is love (cf. 1 Cor 12 and 13). The greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven are not the ministers but the saints."(12)

4. Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church's judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.

Invoking an abundance of divine assistance upon you, venerable brothers, and upon all the faithful, I impart my apostolic blessing.

From the Vatican, on May 22, the Solemnity of Pentecost, in the year 1994, the sixteenth of my Pontificate.

Tuesday, June 14, 2005

This is from the 1928 Book of Common Prayer. We've come a long way in our attitudes.

Dearly beloved, on ___ day next I purpose, through God's assistance, to administer to all such as shall be religiously and devoutly disposed the most comfortable Sacrament of the Body and blood of Christ; to be by them received in remembrance of his meritorious Cross and Passion; whereby alone we obtain remission of our sins, and are made partakers of the Kingdom of heaven. Wherefore it is our duty to render most humble and hearty thanks to Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that he hath given his Son our Saviour Jesus Christ, not only to die for us, but also to be our spiritual food and sustenance in that holy Sacrament. Which being so divine and comfortable a thing to them who receive it worthily, and so dangerous to those who will presume to receive it unworthly; my duty is to exhort you, in the mean season to consider the dignity of that holy mystery, and the great peril of the wunworthy receiving thereof; and so to search and examine your own consciences, and that not lightly, and after the manner of dissembers with God; but so that ye may come holy and clean to such a heavenly Feast, in the marriage-garment required by God in holy Scripture, and be received as worthy partakers of that holy Table.

The way and means thereto is: First, to examine your lives and conversations by the rule of God's commandments; and whereinsoever ye shall perceive yourselves to have offended, either by will, word, or deed, there to bewail your own sinfulness, and to confess yourselves to Almighty God, with full purpose of amendment of life. And if ye shall perceive your offenses to be such as are not only against God, but also against your neighbours; then ye shall reconcile yourselves unto them; being ready to make restitution and satisfaction, according to the uttermost of your powers, for all injuries and wrongs done by you to any other; and being likewise ready to forgive others who have offended you, as ye would have forgiveness of your offences at God's hand: for otherwise the receiving of the holy Communion doth nothing else but increase your condemnation. Therefore, if any of you be a blasphemer of God, an hinderer or slanderer of his Word, an adulterer, or be in malice, or envy, or in any other grievous crime; repent you of your sins, or else come not to that holy Table.

And because it is requisite that not man should come to the holy Communion, but with a full trust in God's mercy, and with a quiet conscience; therefore, if there be any of you, who by this means cannot quiet his own conscience herein, but requireth further comfort or cousel, let him come to me, or to some other Minister of God's Word, and open his grief; that he may receive such godly counsel and advice, as may tend to the quieting of his conscience, and the removing of all scruple and doubtfulness.

Saturday, June 11, 2005

This is something for which John Paul (RIP) agitated for years. I reckon its a good thing, though I have a lot of questions, mainly about accountability in these nations. The article says they have to implement anti-corruptions stuff. I wonder... Hopefully it will all translate to more bread on the table for the poor. We'll see. Though maybe we won't see. Read the whole thing at the NY Times.LONDON, June 11 - The world's wealthiest nations formally agreed Saturday to cancel at least $40 billion of debt owed to international agencies by the world's poorest lands, most of them in Africa.

After late-night talks in London, the finance ministers of the Group of 8 industrialized nations announced that the deal, long in negotiation, had been intended to avoid damaging the ability of international lenders like the World Bank, the African Development Bank and the International Monetary Fund to continue helping other poor countries.

"This is a historic moment," said John W. Snow, the United States Treasury secretary, one of the participants. "A real milestone has been reached."

Finally, here is another. It accuses conservatives (presumably) of thinking of liberals and homosexuals as unworthy to share communion with them (us) (whatever). Read all of them here.

What kind of theology would allow us to step away from the altar and say, “I cannot receive from you or with you, because you are not worthy”? Who of us is? Is that not why we come?

In spite of our often deeply felt differences, we cannot declare each other “out of communion.” Is it not Christ who has brought us into communion by his saving grace? Not because we are worthy or right, but because we are his? What human authority can take even the least among us and declare him/her out of communion?

We are all people who love the Lord with all our heart, soul, mind and strength, even though we are standing in different places.I beseech those contemplating separation from ECUSA not to take this step away from communion with us. I would pray that we could continue to share in the communion of the one who makes us whole, in the midst of and perhaps, especially now, because of our division and need.

Here is another. This one has colorful things to say about that wicked Red Coat, ++Rowan Cantuar. Read all of them here.

The bishops have once more bowed to the minority Christian Right -- the tail still wags the dog.

As far as churches in other countries, we can respect their views, and they should equally respect ours. If they find it impossible to be in communion with us, that is their right. They should understand that we would not give money to those who do not respect our rights to chose our own bishops and head our own direction.

We should also remind the archbishop of Canterbury that we won the American Revolution. I see no reason to accept his directives to us any more than our ancestors would accept English tea. I was baptized as an Episcopalian almost 60 years ago. We have always been a liberal, forward-thinking church. We have always been inclusive.

The present turnaround sends a sad message to many. They had finally achieved an equality. A large number of bishops agreed to full equality -- they voted for it. Now these same bishops want to change their position because the right wing of the church is unhappy. I am ashamed to be an Episcopalian.

Here following are a selection from among the letters to the editor of Episcopal Life. They are impressive. Read all of them here.

This is in response to George J. MacCormack’s letter in the April 2005 issue. Mr. MacCormack misrepresents Jesus. Jesus never once mentioned the word homosexuality in the Bible or in any way broached the topic of same-sex affiliations. If Jesus thought correcting gays was such an important thing to do, he sure forgot to tell the rest of the world.

As a former men’s prison counselor, one thing I have found to be true is this: Those people who vocalize their disapproval of gays the most are those who themselves have had sexual experiences with their same gender and have never been able to accept it. They project their self-conflicted hatred onto gays.

According to the Kinsey report, over half of all men have had some same-gender sexual contact. No wonder there is so much disgust regarding gays. So many people hate themselves and merely find peace when they attack others.

Using the guise of “helping” or “correcting” others while condemning gays is actually anti-Christ like. Jesus was pretty clear about not judging others (Matt. 7:1). Most healthy people who are secure about their own sexuality do not have time, energy or interest in “correcting” gays.

I wonder how many of you out there pray the Rosary? I love the Rosary. I usually don't pray it, but I like praying it. On Fridays during Lent, Bean and I were praying the Sorrowful Mysteries.

In addition to the traditional sets of mysteries (Joyful, Sorrowful, Glorious), there is now a set of mysteries called the Luminous Mysteries. They were promulgated by Pope John Paul II (RIP) in his Apostolic Letter Rosarium Virginis Mariae.

The first Luminous Mystery is our Lord's Baptism at the hands of John in the Jordan. Here are some helpful scriptural bits to say before each Ave:

1. John is baptizing in the Jordan proclaiming a baptism of repentance.

2. "I am the voice of one crying in the desert, make straight the way of the Lord."

3. "One mightier than I is coming after me."

4. "I have baptized you with water, He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."

5. Seeing Jesus, John exclaims: "Behold the Lamb of God."

6. After Jesus' baptism a voice from Heaven: "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased."

7. The Spirit descends upon Jesus in the form of a dove.

8. In this heavenly manifestation is instituted the sacrament of baptism.

9. The divine Trinity is manifested: the voice of the Father is heard as the Spirit descends upon the Son.

10. Filled with the Holy Spirit, Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert for 40 days.

Thursday, June 09, 2005

Marriage and the family are not casual sociological constructs, fruits of a particular historical and economic situation,” the Holy Father said. “On the contrary, the question of the right relationship between man and woman has its roots in the most profound essence of the human being, and can only find its answer in the latter.

The Bible presents man as “created in the image of God, and God himself is love. For this reason, the vocation to love is what makes man the authentic image of God: He becomes like God in the measure that he becomes someone who loves.

Wednesday, June 08, 2005

After we've gotten our "Network" province in the U.S. how long will it be before we're hearing accusations of "idolatry" and "bread worship" from some pulpits?

Speaking only from my experience (which, I admit, is pretty limited), I'd say that most theologically informed evangelicals are pretty receptive to catholic praxis, without caring to avail themselves of it. Most (again, in my experience) tend to have a high-ish sacramentalism, at least as compared with, for example, Presbyterians. Some are suspicious of certain catholic practices, usually the invocation of saints and the veneration of relics, but if we could come to agree that these are aidiaphora, we would have made a huge intra-communion eccumenical leap. And I think that such agreement is well within the realm of possibility.

Maybe that's largely due to agreement on moral issues between catholics and evangelicals, but maybe we could consider agreement on moral issues to be not merely superficiem, but a segue to a deeper theological rapprochement -- maybe the agreement will provide a more charitable basis for approaching the issues addressed (comparatively uncharitably) by the various parties to the Elizabethan settlement.It's only the prissy anglophilia of some anglo-catholics which has prevented them from embracing some aspects of spirituality often associated with evangelicals.

True, but I don't think its properly just anglophilia. Its also a philos for the accountrements of catholic practice, and a concomitant neglect of the substance of catholic theology -- the temptation here is to a naive ritualism, and its very real among anglo-catholics. How could it not be? The accountrements are truly good and beautiful. This is the sort of temptation to which we acquiesce when we self-righteously (and loudly) storm out of a "mass" when we notice the celebrant is a woman. I've known people who delight in doing that. I've done it once or twice myself.

You're perfectly right to point out that anglo-catholicism is being true to itself when it gratefully acknoweldges the consolations of the spiritual life; that its not just conceding ground to evangelical enthusiasm. But again, there can be a temptation to stodginess among anglo-catholics (and again, I'm often guilty of this) which is just a prideful, emotional bulwark against what we often erroneously regard as the erosion of catholic identity by evangelical sentamentalism.I would also like to see some clarification about what it means "to dwell on such things" as you reckon it.

First of all, I was talking about the aesthetics of anglo-catholicism, not its ascetics -- though what I mean could really be said of either.

By "dwelling on such things" I just mean that aesthetics (incense, candles, Pallestrina, damask, etc.) as well as ascetical practices are all means to an end. When we lose sight of the end (salvation, deification, the beatific vision, union, etc.), we can become satisfied with our accomplishment of the means, and pride slips in. So not to "dwell on" these things is just to remember that they are not ends in themselves, and that we should therefore insist on nothing but the end which they serve (though we can and ought gratefully to avail ourselves of the means).

But this also means that we should be happy to receive communion from a godly Evangelical priest vested in a cassock alb, but duly ordained in the succession, etc., if we should find ourselves in such a situation. Some anglo-catholics will shreak and faint away, like a Bond Street dandy, if an acoustic guitar appears at mass. They shouldn't act like that.

I think that it's better in this case to look to the interpretations of Holy Scripture which we have from classical anglicanism, roman catholicism, and eastern orthodoxy than to start from scratch.

I agree completely. I just mean that we cannot really listen to the teachings on scripture that come from our mediate ecclesial context, because those teachings are woefully inadequate at best, and in many cases flatly apostate. Individuals ought to read the bible for themselves, but they ought to read it within the interpretive framework, as you say, of (in our case) historical anglicanism, Roman Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy.

Evangelicals' ability to embrace the ordination of women while simultaneously expressing horror at the consecration of Gene Robinson is incomprehensible to catholic Anglicans. To many Anglo-Catholics, the former is a matter of ontology and represents a fundamental change in the understanding of the appropriate matter of a sacrament while the latter is a matter of morals. While many Anglo-Catholics might find the selection of Gene Robinson troubling, none who have been properly catechized can doubt the validity of his consecration. To the catholic mind, any sinfulness in Gene Robinson's lifestyle is a personal moral matter more closely akin to Fr. Harmon's serving breakfast before mass than it is to attempting to confect a sacrament with novel matter.

Now I don't consider myself and evangelical, but I think this article is a little too polemical, a little overzealous, a little too self-consciously effete anglo-catholic. There's plenty that anglo-catholics can learn from evangelicals. We could stand a little of what is often called (with marked disdain) "sentimentalism". The Holy Spirit can operate within the psyche of the individual, thank God, and the catholic life is full of consolations and emotion. Granted, the catalyst is usually not electric guitar-driven, but its there nonetheless.

Anglo-Catholicism is a wonderful aesthetical experience, but too often anglo-catholics get wrapped up in the aesthetical experience, to the neglect of the charity. We can become arrogant, condescending, perfectly content to congratulate ourselves for how many decades we regularly pray, for the strictness of our observance of the Kalendar, our avoidance of breakfast before mass, and our never-failing to avoid sherry after mass. But to dwell on such things, wonderful as they are, is to take the first steps down the road that leads to the high-church veneer covering a "broad" church rotten to its core. Bp. Griswold, I'm told, likes incense too.

I agree that Bp. Robinson's lifestyle is a "personal moral matter". But evangelicals are right in their recognition that it is not just a personal moral matter. The main problem is not Bp. Robinson's lifestyle, but the ECUSA's corporate consent to his election, given his lifestyle. Anglo-catholics and evangelicals should be on the same page on this point. ECUSA's false teaching is far more problematic than any individual's sexual sin.

Finally the notion that the Bible ought to be read by "the Church" and not by individuals is ridiculous given Anglicanism's painful lack of any magisterial function. Its true: left unchecked, people read the Bible and come up with nutty, nutty stuff. The Church properly sets the interpretive boundaries. But the ECUSA hierarchy has made it perfectly clear that the last thing they are interested in is the setting of interpretive boundaries. When one's Church provides no guidance, or what's worse, when its own teaching is far beyond the pale of Catholicity, what is the individual believer to do?

I think the thrust of this article is right. I think most evangelicals have a rather impoverished ecclesiology. They have no notion of the prerogatives of apostilicity. But then, neither do the apostles' heirs in ECUSA.

Sunday, June 05, 2005

No-one has the right to take decisions which affect the whole. The moment the ‘local’ wrests decisions from the whole, it is engaging in division. No diocese should take unilateral action which impairs the life of the whole province. Every House of Bishops must seek unity of vision for the sake of the Province it leads – and deviation from agreed constitutions will only weaken the Church bishops claim to serve. No Province should take unilateral action which affects and impairs the whole Communion – that only denies the nature of communion and declares that we are in reality no more than a federation of independent Churches. That clearly is not our ecclesiology and we have to say so, again and again and again..

And let me take that one step further, to engage in division is itself to undermine truth. The call to unity is at least as strong in Scripture as is the call to purity and holiness. ‘I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church’. It is there as a fundamental tenet of our faith. So I hope that those who are tempted to go their own way, wherever they are, and for what ever reason they feel frustrated with the Communion will hold back, and have faith in the loving purposes of God. The unity of the Church is, after all, God’s gift to us. It is not of our making. It is we in our disobedience who have fragmented, and fragmented again and again.

Read the whole thing here. It is from Archbishop Carey's presidential address to the Anglican Consultative Council in September 1999.

As to where I take the proper place of reason and experience to be: I take them to be properly used in obedience to Holy Mother Church (which means, in part, in obedience to the moral injunctions of scripture -- as the Universal Church has received them).

I honestly believe that if I weren't a Christian, I would be a raving and intemperate social Libertarian. Human reason is fallen and must be baptized. As we die into God, I think we come truly to see the unuterrable wisdom of God's foolishness. I think that's why Bp. Spong [he really has become the conservative whipping boy, hasn't he?] rejects the sacrifice of Christ crucified -- that is, because its foolishness to the Greeks, to those who are perishing. It really doesn't make any sense without grace, and not just without the doctrine of grace, but without the opperation of grace in the lives, in the minds, of those being sanctified. I mean why would I lay down anything -- my money, my position, my intellect, my power, my sexuality -- apart from my aching need to die into Jesus' death? But I NEED him, because I am rotten to the core. I am sick and insane without him.

The Christian life can therefore only be about obedience. The old life ends with pure obedience, just as the Old Covenant came to an end with the pure obedience of the Blessed Virgin. With her, God has the best that finite man has to offer. With her blessed words "Fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum," God has a finite human totally receptive to his initiative, because she carries nothing of herself, and she becomes pure power in the hands of God. With our blessed Lady's act of obedience and self-abegnation in response to the summons of divinity, the Old Covenant passes away, and mankind offers to God the best of itself, the spotless and immaculate Virgin, a womb that will become the dwelling place of God.

Mary didn't stop to excise the offensive bits from the angel's message. She didn't remove those bits of it that were repellent to her reason and experience. And what in the message could not have been repellent to her reason and experience? Virgins don't conceive and bear sons! That's about as offensive to reason as one can get. And she didn't insist on forcing the message into the mould of her cultural surround. She didn't say "Okay, Gabriel, I will carry Emmanuel, but only after I'm married." She said "Be it done to me according to your word," with all the offense to reason and experience, and all the rejection that that entailed.

Christians, I believe, are in the position of our Lady at the Annunciation. But God has ordained the medium of the scriptures -- of which the Church Universal, the Bride of Christ, is the custodian -- to speak to us, to call us to himself and to his purpose. And we have two options. We can say, with our blessed Lady, "Be it done to me according to your word," or we can say with the fallen angels, "I will not serve." With the former comes all the blessedness of Emmanuel, God with us. With the latter comes all the judgment and wrath of God apart from us.

Saturday, June 04, 2005

I've spent a good deal of energy worrying about the current alliance in the Anglican Communion between Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals. I've wondered whether an alliance based on agreement concerning moral teachings might not be cutting off our nose to spite our face, i.e. in the light of what might be disagreements between Catholics and Evangelicals nearly as serious as those dividing both Catholics and Evangelicals from Liberals.

In the end I think Catholics and Evangelicals have more in common with one another than either have with Liberals. The question (as many have acknowledged) is really one of authority. The traditionalists (of both flavors) identify the source of ecclesial authority as definitively outside the constituency of the Church Militant. Both would perhaps agree that ecclesial authority is found in the person of Jesus Christ, but Evangelicals tend to find the primary locus for that authority in the Word of God, the Bible. Catholics, while tending often to have a high regard for the Bible, tend also to have a high regard for what they often call “Holy Tradition”, or the historical teaching of the Church, particularly in its undivided, pre-reformational, and even more particularly its first-millennial manifestations. Catholics like to accept the authority of the Bible as binding absolutely, yet accept it because it comes recommended as such by the Catholic Church, the Holy Tradition.

The Tradition of the Church is therefore the arbiter of the Bible’s authority. We must distinguish, however, between the Church’s role of arbitrating Biblical authority and the erroneous view that the Church is herself the source of the Bible’s authority. We accept the authority of the bible, we acknowledge its binding us, because the Church RECOGNIZES that authority, because the Church ACKNOWLEDGES that authority, and not because the Church BESTOWED that authority to begin with. The Church, as the Body of Christ, is therefore a locus of our Lord’s own role as “our only mediator and advocate”.

This, by the way, is the reason why there is no salvation apart from the Catholic Church. That is, because it is the Catholic Church who says to God, with the Blessed Virgin, “Be it done to me according to your word,” and it is the Catholic Church who asks, with Simon Peter, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” We ride on the coattails of the Communion of Saints in their acceptance of the hegemony of the prerogatives of God in Christ. It is their testimony that mediates for us the story of the unique salvation from sin and death found in the cross of Christ.

Over the past two years, the debate has moved from fundamental disagreement over interpreting scriptural teachings on human sexuality, to fundamental disagreement over church polity. Arguments over the latter have been at least as heated as arguments over the former.

It is in the area of ecclesiology, however, where many orthodox Anglicans will find the Roman Catholic advice less helpful. It is no particular surprise that the Vatican would endorse a stronger "supra-provincial authority" to secure unity in doctrine and discipline. But there is a raft of questions that arise.

Would the strong-handed approach work in the Anglican Communion? Does the Archbishop of Canterbury wish to become a mini-pope or patriarch? How many Anglicans wish to have such a powerful figure seated in Canterbury? The proposal runs counter to 450 years of Anglican history.

The question, though, regarding the controversial recommendations of the Windsor Report, is not whether the Archbishop of Canterbury ought to have this or that power. The question is really whether he ought to exercise this or that power. For ultimately to be Anglican means to be in communion with the See of Canterbury, and the See of Canterbury decides with whom it is in communion.

Preliminary summaries of the [ARCIC Marian] document indicate that Catholic dogmas such as the immaculate conception and the bodily assumption of Mary are defended by an appeal to the silence of Scripture on such matters. The dogmas are not directly justified; instead they are said to be not incompatible with biblical teaching.Orthodox Anglicans are rightly suspicious of such double-negative formulations based on silence. They have heard them frequently from Anglican liberals, whose favorite debating point is that "Jesus never said anything about homosexuality." This kind of argument offers a very weak basis for altering long-settled teachings.

But notice that in the case of the Roman Catholic marian dogmas, the scriptures as a whole are silent, and that the tradition of the Church, from rather early, is anything but silent. As noted in the IRD paper, regarding the traditional teaching on homosexuality, the liberal refrain is not that the scripture is silent, but that Jesus is silent. The point is that, as everyone knows, the scriptures are not silent on the issue of homosexuality, St. Paul was not silent, and neither is the Holy Tradition, which has spoken loudly and unequivocally on the matter. The teachings of Jesus are shaped for us by, among other things, the teachings of St. Paul about the teachings of Jesus. Both Catholics and Evangelicals acknowledge that they are bound by the teaching of St. Paul in the Bible as much as they are bound by anything, and Catholics acknowledge the added constraint of Church Tradition.

The questions of authority dividing Evangelicals and Catholics are therefore about where, outside of themselves, the locus of authority is to be found. Ultimately, however, they agree that authority is located outside of themselves. They agree that it is to be found in God, in the person of Jesus Christ and the initiatives of the Holy Spirit. Catholics, however, discern the action of the Holy Spirit in the magisterial functions of the Church, whereas Evangelicals do not. The point is this: whereas Evangelicals and Catholics acknowledge that their belief is arbitrated by authority outside themselves individually or collectively, Liberals do not. Time and again Liberals appeal to the third leg of the “three legged stool” (which, by the way, is a misreading of Hooker); they appeal namely to their own reason and experience. When Bp. Griswold talks about “new truth”, all he is really saying is that our reason and our experience mediate the claims of both the scriptures and the tradition. He might say that Christ is the source of all authority, but that it is Christ-within-us who is the ultimate arbiter. That is just to say: we are the authority. We sit in judgment over the Church and the Bible. When our reason and experience run counter to the Bible and the Tradition of the Church, the Bible and the Tradition must bend the knee to our reason and experience. We will not serve.

But the Liberal position is untenable, for it posits not just our reason and experience as the foundation for authority, but our reason and experience AS CHRISTIANS as the foundation for CHRISTIAN authority. The fallacy is just this: WE HAVE NO IDENTITY AS CHRISTIANS APART FROM BOTH SCRIPTURE AND CHURCH TRADITION. Were there no Tradition or Scripture, there would be no Christians. We have no claim to the name of Jesus, and therefore no claim to a Christian identity, apart from the Communion of Saints from whom we learned that the Savior’s name is Jesus, and from whom we learned what it is to be baptized in that name, what it is to be a Christian.

Friday, June 03, 2005

From Titusonenine. Thank you Fr. Harmon. Read the whole thing here. Its from Mr. Raymond J. Dague, who is Chancellor to St. Andrew’s Episcopal Church in Syracuse. He's writing about the Diocese's unfortunate decision to invite Marcus Borg to speak to everyone at some event.

One of my pet peeves is Historical Criticism. It just won't preach, as they say. In other words, whether the price of olives in the first century actually caused St. Paul to be as angry as he was is just not a question that anyone has ever cared about asking (or answering). Who was the real Beloved Disciple? How we know Jesus really didn't walk on water, etc. Training ministers to investigate these things is, I'm pretty sure, an active ingredient in the church-poisoning theological concoction that's seeping into the veins of the mainline denominations. Anyway:

Weird things continue to pop up around the country with the name “Episcopal” attached. Last fall a husband and wife pair of Episcopalrectors in Pennsylvania were discovered as having been longtime Druids.Surely you would think that the bishop of these two priests woulddiscipline them. But when they renounced their Druid practices andresigned from the “Order of Bards, Ovates and Druids” their bishopdisciplined neither of them. He issued a press release touting the positivecontributions they had made to the church. The husband later renounced hisChristian faith to become a Druid priest. The wife is still rector of herEpiscopal Church. Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold has uttered not a peepover this apostasy.

The official website of the national Episcopal Church carried a “Women’sEucharist” which is pure pagan worship of the female body. When a circleof women drink from a cup of wine they invoke the image of their menstrualblood in an act which looks like Satan worship.

One of the most prominent Episcopal churches in the nation, Trinity Church on Wall Street in New York City, had a very interesting celebration on Trinity Sunday 2005. While we at St. Andrew’s were celebrating the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit with the liturgy of the faith used for almost 2000years, Trinity Wall Street had a clown mass. No words were said for thereadings which were instead acted out in mime. The congregation respondedwith noise makers rather than said or sung prayers. The priest was dressedup like Bozo the Clown rather than wearing liturgical vestments. Insteadof incense they blew bubbles around the altar. If you go to the TrinityWall Street website you can watch this entire hour-long liturgy travesty.

This is all very depressing to me. I'm not sure what I think about the so-called "clown eucharist". But I'm beginning to believe it is, at best, a manifestation of serious error about the Eucharist. At worst, I think its probably satanic. I mean, what are you trying to communicate in looking like Bozo the Clown as the celebrant? You know that this is not your Eucharist. It is our Lord's. It seems like an effort to make our Lord look like a clown. Its certainly nothing to do with the the perfect sacrifice for our sins on the cross. It can't conceivably be even an effort to present our Lord's sacrifice, obediently to make an anamnesis of it, until His coming with power and greast glory to judge the living and hte dead.

The recent ARCIC document about the place of the Blessed Virgin in theology and devotion has been much touted lately, and I think for good reason. (For two interesting takes on it, try J-Tron and the Young Fogey.) I think, however, that it is a bit overzealous to identify many commonalities between Roman Catholic devotional practice and the devotional practice of Episcopalians. This is mainly because, in my experience, Episcoplians really don't have much of a devotional life. If there were a quantifiable average, I would wager it would be somewhere rather below that of the Roman Catholic. Episcopalians are encouraged to think that anything whatsoever counts as devotion, so long as you feel spiritual about it. Some examples (that I have actually heard) are: fishing, yoga, walking labyrinths, gay sex, communing with nature, and being quiet.

Fr. Kimel's analysis of the authority issue in ECUSA is spot-on, in this instance. There is no real Episcopal devotional practice. Insofar as there might be said to be an Episcopal teaching on devotional practices, it is probabably something like "whatever floats your boat."

Now, this attitude isn't always bad. Its the permissive element of Episcopalian authority that permits me to continue as not-a-Calvinist and not-an-insane-person --- that is, against the grain of ECUSA's past and current cultural vagaries. But when people begin to speak of "the devotional practice" of the ECUSA (or even of "theology" for that matter), I think they are more or less kidding themselves.

Wednesday, June 01, 2005

Here are some of the concluding highlights of the Anglican-Roman Catholic joint statement on the place of the Blessed Virgin in the life of the Church. It looks very hopeful. I encourage you to read the whole thing.

-the teaching that God has taken the Blessed Virgin Mary in the fullness of her person into his glory as consonant with Scripture, and only to be understood in the light of Scripture (paragraph 58);

-that in view of her vocation to be the mother of the Holy One, Christ's redeeming work reached 'back' in Mary to the depths of her being and to her earliest beginnings (paragraph 59);

-that the teaching about Mary in the two definitions of the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception, understood within the biblical pattern of the economy of hope and grace, can be said to be consonant with the teaching of the Scriptures and the ancient common traditions (paragraph 60);

-that this agreement, when accepted by our two Communions, would place the questions about authority which arise from the two definitions of 1854 and 1950 in a new ecumenical context (paragraphs 61-63);

-that Mary has a continuing ministry which serves the ministry of Christ, our unique mediator, that Mary and the saints pray for the whole Church and that the practice of asking Mary and the saints to pray for us is not communion-dividing (paragraphs 64-75)

A lot of theological water has now passed under the bridge. It is now common for Episcopalians to uncontroversially state that there are “many ways to God” and that Jesus is but “one savior among many.” The gospel of Christ has been replaced by an insidious counterfeit—the ideology of radical inclusivity. The three sacraments of this ideology are abortion, the blessing of same-sex unions, and open communion. As an institution, the Episcopal Church is no longer in a crisis of apostasy; it simply is apostate. Of course, there still remain faithful orthodox believers, congregations, and even some dioceses; but the war for orthodoxy in ECUSA has been lost. The House of Bishops, the ECUSA bureaucracy, the seminaries, and the majority of parish pastors have all embraced the false gospel of radical inclusivity. The Episcopal Church has become an effete high church unitarianism. Episcopalians today worship a very different God than the God Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. To all who still believe we are called by God to stay and fight and recapture the institution—wake up and smell the coffee! ECUSA’s madness is God’s judgment upon it. God is not going to save the Episcopal Church as an institution. He has lifted his restraining hand and is now allowing it to follow its own sinful desires into lunacy and dissolution.

I have to say, I agree with almost all of what he says. But I keep reminding myself of the situation of, for example, Gregory of Nazianzus. The Church was crumbling into apostasy around his ears too. There are, admitedly, dissanalogies, and I certainly would not criticize Fr. Kimel for his actions. St. Gregory after all was the orthodox life raft. Its just that I really believe that the law of our prayer is the law of our belief -- apart from whatever the overwhelming, heterodox majority would tell you -- and I can still discern catholicity in our Common Prayer, although sometimes I have to squint and turn my head sideways to see it, but I believe its there.

Its true: I may be in communion with Bishops Robinson and Griswold et al. That can't be helped. But I'm also in communion with Jeremy Taylor and Lancelot Andrewes and King Charles and Pusey and Keble and George Herbert and Gregory Dix and the Martyrs of Melanesia and, for that matter, Bp. Duncan and Fr. Kimel (at least until the paperwork is sorted out).

I do believe, more and more, that the ship has hit the iceberg and is going unrecoverably down. For now I mean to direct people to the life rafts. I agree with Fr. Zahl that the ECUSA has become a mission field, and I believe that many of the natives are receptive to the Gospel. For now, my help being in the Name of the Lord, I mean to proclaim it to them.